TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1438
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and raised the specific ground among other grounds before the CESTAT in this regard. However, the order of the CESTAT does not reflect any findings on the point of extended period as raised by the appellant and also issuance of show cause notice demanding duty by invoking the extended period of limitation under section 11 (A) (1) of the Act. Without there being a finding or discussion on the said point by CESTAT, it should not be appropriate for this Court to deal with the issue on merits. 9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that instead of disposing the matter on merits, it would be appropriate for us to direct the CESTAT/1st respondent herein to consider the same on the issue of invocation of extended period of limitation as well as the action being initiated after the extended period, invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. 10. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the point of limitation, we hereby direct the CESTAT/1st respondent herein to afford an opportunity to the assessee/appellant herein and after addressing/adverting to all the grounds raised, pass appropriate orders on the point of limitation. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ork and the finished goods are cleared from the appellant unit, the department failed to verify the same till the visit of the officers from the DGCEI. If the officers had conducted verification after receiving the intimation dated 3.8.2000, they would have come to know that appellant is merely a job worker for M/s. CPSML and that the principal manufacturer is M/s. CPSML who is liable to pay the duty. The officers failed to verify the records and also take note of the obligation undertaken by M/s. CPSML to the department wherein M/s. CPSML has categorically stated that they would be discharging the duty liability. However, both the units failed to make payment of duty and the department also failed to monitor / object to the availment of facility of Notification No. 214/1986. Therefore, the decision laid down in Varoc Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable to the appellant s case and the demand has to be set aside on the ground of limitation. 2.4 Statements have been recorded from 19 persons who were connected with M/s. CPSML and the appellant. These were brokers, transporters, buyers and sellers of raw materials and finished goods. The appellant sought for cross-examin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raw material (cotton), as well as finished products (cotton cone yarn). The discrepancy noted is as under:- Description of the goods Physical Stock As per Annexure V RG 1 Difference Cotton (Raw material) 23100 Kgs. 32285.10 Kgs. 9185.10 Kgs. (short) 2/20s DHPR 6100 Kgs. 3000 Kgs. 2200 Kgs. (excess) 60s Cone Yarn 2200 Kgs. 2850 Kgs. 650 Kgs. (shortage) The appellant has not been able to explain the shortage or the excess. The Mahazar has been signed by Sh. Amrithalingam, Factory Manager and Sh. M. Swaminathan, Deputy Manager (Sales) apart from the witnesses. 3.3. On the very same day Sh. M. Swaminathan has given statement to the effect that the shortage of 60s count cone yarn is because, the cone yarn has already been removed clandestinely without accounting. The excess stock of hank yarn (2/20 DHPR) is produced out of the unaccounted cotton received form M/s CPSML, and were being kept for clandestine removal without accounting 3.4. In addition to receiving raw materials from M/s CPSML, the appellant has procured raw material without invoices and in the name of Parthiv Spinning Mills and used these to manufacture cotton cone yarn (dutiable goods) of differ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son of fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules, thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty,, by such person or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if, for the words one year, the words five years were substituted." 5.1 The main argument put forward by Ld. Counsel for appellant is that the department was put to knowledge that appellant was job work manufacturer for M/s CPSML who supplied the raw materials. Letters of intimation regarding the intention to follow procedure under Notification No. 214/86 given by appellant as well as M/s CPSML is placed on records. It is therefore appellant s case that department was put to knowledge about manufacture on job work basis. If the department had conducted verification immediately on receiving these intimations it would have been clear that M/s. CPSML is under obligation to pay duty. Thus the defence put forward by appellant appears to be shifting the burden on the department. The appellant seems to be in convenient forgetfulness of its responsibility and liability under Central Excise Law when engaged i....